With what we have seen so far, 4.6GHz is gonna be the cap for RyZen 3000 using conventional cooling. Also highly likely each tier of RyZen would have heavily binned chiplets. OC a 3700X upwards maybe more difficult than people think

With what we have seen so far, 4.6GHz is gonna be the cap for RyZen 3000 using conventional cooling. Also highly likely each tier of RyZen would have heavily binned chiplets. OC a 3700X upwards maybe more difficult than people think

With what we have seen so far, 4.6GHz is gonna be the cap for RyZen 3000 using conventional cooling. Also highly likely each tier of RyZen would have heavily binned chiplets. OC a 3700X upwards maybe more difficult than people think

Pay attention the TDP limit of 105W - same as old generation so they can be compatible with all the boards, they could release 125W with higher clocks but they could have got bad PR from customers that aren't happy that their cheap A320 board doesn't support the new CPU's,

Pay attention the TDP limit of 105W - same as old generation so they can be compatible with all the boards, they could release 125W with higher clocks but they could have got bad PR from customers that aren't happy that their cheap A320 board doesn't support the new CPU's,

Oh yeah in gaming with a variable fps, that was another fail, I wanted a single or multithread benchmark apples to apples and that did only happen on the 12 cores. 3900x x 9920 and plus ryzen had a 200mhs difference. 4.4 x 4.6, but in all fairness this was much more fair than 8 threads to 16 threads, even though it had 200mhs more for 3900x.

When companies talk about "competition", they mean products having the same price.
If the "competition" has a single core 8-bit CPU at 3Mhz for $329, that's what they will compare the new product with.

So 9700K was a totally fair comparison, price wise.
It's not AMD's fault that Intel chose to cripple an i7

That's not how it works. Price points are what matter, not the physical makeup of the chip. The 9700k is $400, the 3700x is $330. If you compare the 9900k to the 3700x you're comparing a $500 CPU to one that's almost $200 cheaper than it. They're products competing in a wildly different price segment.

When companies talk about "competition", they mean products having the same price.
If the "competition" has a single core 8-bit CPU at 3Mhz for $329, that's what they will compare the new product with.

So 9700K was a totally fair comparison, price wise.
It's not AMD's fault that Intel chose to cripple an i7

That's not how it works. Price points are what matter, not the physical makeup of the chip. The 9700k is $400, the 3700x is $330. If you compare the 9900k to the 3700x you're comparing a $500 CPU to one that's almost $200 cheaper than it. They're products competing in a wildly different price segment.

As per my previous post, amd set that price now, intel had its price for a long time. Like I said before, Intel will set the 9700k much lower as amd launches the 3700x and then you trolls will say, intel was not fair hehe and amd will not move the price and you trolls will cry about it.